Obama Makes Jimmy Carter Look Good

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
wisnij
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: a planet called Erp

Post by wisnij »

Diogenes wrote:Uh, you do know that Hawaii is the only state in the Nation that will give certifications of birth to people who were not actually born there? It's because they have a lot of birth at sea on ships coming to Hawaii, so they WILL register a birth that did not actually occur there. All that was required was an affidavit from a Relative that an "At Home" birth occurred.
Nope.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

ladajo wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
ladajo wrote:Ok, as I try to understand my own circumstances better:

From US Code Title 8, Section 1401:
Which means that by US Law I am a Citizen "At Birth".

And, From the 14th Amendment: and
and from Article 1, Section 8: And via further research:
Rogers v Bellei, 401 US 815 (1971)

Section IV:
So, it would seem that through the Constitutionaly derived power, upheld by the Supreme Court, and maintained through a long history of Legislation, Congress defines me as a "Natural Born Citizen", based on "Citizenship at Birth".

Ironically, in the case I cited, due to it being the most recent applicable decision I could find, the Court ruled against Citizenship rights for Mr. Bellei. however, the pertinant part for me was the argument, and the Court clarification to its interpretation of the Constitution, Legislative Rights of Congress, and rightful power of the Statutes in question.

I have learned. Hmmm. :)

Edit: Added US Constitution Article 8 Sect. 5, and Article 1, Sect 8 cites.


I am trying to follow what you are saying, but I'm having a difficult time wrapping my mind around it. It sounds like you are saying that congress can change the meaning of an article of the Constitution without resorting to the Amendment process. Is that what you are saying?
I went like this:
1. Reviewed US Code to see what it says about Citizenship (Title 8 Section 1401)

2. Reviewed Constitution to see what it says regarding Citizenship and Powers of Congress. Article 1 Section 8, 14th Amendment Sections 1 and 5.

3. Determined that the Constitution gives the power to Congress to enact laws for the execution of the provisions of the Constitution (Article 1 Sect. 8 & 14th Amendment Section 5.)

4. Reviewed related US Supreme Court Cases and Decisions to see where Congressional Powers start and end in regard to the Citizenship Issue, as well as the Court's interpretation of the Constitution and its guidance in the matter. In this process, I then reveiwed the changes in opinion through the years culminating with the most current related decision, Rogers v. Bellei (1971)

5. Review of the Rogers v. Bellei (1971) 401 US 815 decision provides that the Court upholds the right of Congress to enact legislation to clarify and regulate the provisions of the Constitution, and that the Court found that the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is equal with "Citizen at Birth", and was envisioned so by the original Congress in that the decision cited:
"The very first Congress, at its Second Session, proceeded to implement its power, under the Constitution's Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" by producing the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. That statute, among other things, stated,

"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States. . . ."..."

And in such that the Court found that the Congress has rightfully enacted legislation to provide provisions to clarify citizenship derivations that the Constitution did not.

So in short, to your question, Yes, the US Supreme Court has held that Congress has the "power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." and also to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" and this includes legislating rules for naturalization, and citizenship issues that are not defined by the Constitution, in some much as that these legislations do not violate the spirit and intent of the Constitution. And, specifically, in that since the Constitution does not clarify "Natural Born Citizen", and that the intent of the meaning was clear in both the commentary and actions of the framers (1st Congress, Federalist Papers, Letters, etc - as you have cited as well), and that Congress has kept in that with its legislation.

401 US 871 is an interesting read. Give it a go. It really helped me. I was not aware of this case until I dug in to the circumstances of my topic, and obviously it has relavence in the bigger picture.

Edit: spelling spelling spelling...


Three points.

1. The Supreme court does not always get it right, especially when they have a split decision. They may have the power to enforce their decision, but that only means they are powerful, it does not mean they are correct.

2. If congress can change the meaning of a term, it renders article II completely moot. Congress could decide that "Naturalized" means "Natural born." They could redefine a year to be 250 days. This overlooks the fact that the contemporary meaning was Ratified by 3/4ths of the STATE legislators, and in accordance with THEIR understanding. I do not believe that statutory authority can override the meaning and intent of an Article of the Constitution.

3. Even if you accept this view, Your interpretation can be regarded as a conflict of Law. (Not at all uncommon.) Where one part of the law says one thing, and another part contradicts it or renders it moot. I have always believed in original intent as opposed to wringing new interpretations out of the text. The foundation document is a set of ideas and principles expressed in a crude form through writing. Words do not do these principles justice, but words are the only way the Founders had of conveying ideas into the future.

To put it simply, it is the IDEA which is important, not whether someone made a mistake in writing it down or used a poor choice of words. As an example, the 14th amendment is guilty of all sorts of mischief because it was so badly written. ( It was based on the Civil Rights act of 1866 which is far clearer in meaning and intent.) It has allowed Liberal Courts to reinterpret the laws to justify everything from Abortion on Demand to Anchor babies. It has caused most people to believe that if you are born anywhere on U.S. Territory you are automatically a U.S. Citizen, but of course place of birth has nothing to do with loyalty to a nation, and that is the Salient point of the "Natural Born Citizen" clause. Loyalty.

The founders did not believe that someone would be loyal to their country unless they were raised by a father that was loyal to their country. The way the Obama administration has turned out, the Founders would be smirking from 200 years ago.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

wisnij wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Uh, you do know that Hawaii is the only state in the Nation that will give certifications of birth to people who were not actually born there? It's because they have a lot of birth at sea on ships coming to Hawaii, so they WILL register a birth that did not actually occur there. All that was required was an affidavit from a Relative that an "At Home" birth occurred.
Nope.


Wow! You went all the way to Wikipedia! I'm impressed! What's more you found that GREAT CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR "Janice Okubo" to express her vast knowledge of Constitutional law!

Well she's not even correct about Hawaiian law.

Current Hawaiian Law:
* §338-13 Certified copies
* §338-15 Late or altered certificates
* §338-16 Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates
* §338-17.8 Certificates for children born out of State
* §338-20.5 Adoption; foreign born persons

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurren ... 7_0008.htm

Hawaiian Law in Effect in 1961 was governed by the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii. A synopsis below. (with link to article excerpted.)

Generally, folks don’t know that Hawaii law, even in 1961, provided for multiple kinds of birth records, most of which are not what people think of when they think of birth certificates. The following is a description of those, including certificates for people not born in Hawaii. Go figure!

1. In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were three different birth certificates that were obtainable: a. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961). b. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or mid wife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, an adult could, upon testimony, file a “Delayed Certificate”, which required endorsement on the Delayed Certificate of a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing, which evidence must be kept in a special permanent file. The statute provided that the probative value of the Delayed Certificate must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. (See Section 57-18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961). c. If a child born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult including the subject person) if the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

And a Link to the actual text of the laws.




Boo-yah ! Body slam for YOU!



Image
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

While I'm at it, i'll point out that Obama isn't even on the "Hawaiian Birth Index" for 1961. (That's the list of Children born in Hawaii during that year.)


He's not listed Under "Obama", or "Dunham" (his mother's maiden name) or "Payne". (his Grandmother's maiden name.)


Funny that the vital records of Hawaii would show no one with his name born that year.


Birth index for "Dunham."

Image



Birth index for "Obama."

Image


Birth Index for "Payne."

Image




Link to article.



Now how do you suppose he got left off the list of people born that year? Inquiring minds want to know!
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Diogenes wrote:
ladajo wrote:
Diogenes wrote:

I am trying to follow what you are saying, but I'm having a difficult time wrapping my mind around it. It sounds like you are saying that congress can change the meaning of an article of the Constitution without resorting to the Amendment process. Is that what you are saying?
I went like this:
1. Reviewed US Code to see what it says about Citizenship (Title 8 Section 1401)

2. Reviewed Constitution to see what it says regarding Citizenship and Powers of Congress. Article 1 Section 8, 14th Amendment Sections 1 and 5.

3. Determined that the Constitution gives the power to Congress to enact laws for the execution of the provisions of the Constitution (Article 1 Sect. 8 & 14th Amendment Section 5.)

4. Reviewed related US Supreme Court Cases and Decisions to see where Congressional Powers start and end in regard to the Citizenship Issue, as well as the Court's interpretation of the Constitution and its guidance in the matter. In this process, I then reveiwed the changes in opinion through the years culminating with the most current related decision, Rogers v. Bellei (1971)

5. Review of the Rogers v. Bellei (1971) 401 US 815 decision provides that the Court upholds the right of Congress to enact legislation to clarify and regulate the provisions of the Constitution, and that the Court found that the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is equal with "Citizen at Birth", and was envisioned so by the original Congress in that the decision cited:
"The very first Congress, at its Second Session, proceeded to implement its power, under the Constitution's Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" by producing the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. That statute, among other things, stated,

"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States. . . ."..."

And in such that the Court found that the Congress has rightfully enacted legislation to provide provisions to clarify citizenship derivations that the Constitution did not.

So in short, to your question, Yes, the US Supreme Court has held that Congress has the "power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." and also to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" and this includes legislating rules for naturalization, and citizenship issues that are not defined by the Constitution, in some much as that these legislations do not violate the spirit and intent of the Constitution. And, specifically, in that since the Constitution does not clarify "Natural Born Citizen", and that the intent of the meaning was clear in both the commentary and actions of the framers (1st Congress, Federalist Papers, Letters, etc - as you have cited as well), and that Congress has kept in that with its legislation.

401 US 871 is an interesting read. Give it a go. It really helped me. I was not aware of this case until I dug in to the circumstances of my topic, and obviously it has relavence in the bigger picture.

Edit: spelling spelling spelling...


Three points.

1. The Supreme court does not always get it right, especially when they have a split decision. They may have the power to enforce their decision, but that only means they are powerful, it does not mean they are correct.

2. If congress can change the meaning of a term, it renders article II completely moot. Congress could decide that "Naturalized" means "Natural born." They could redefine a year to be 250 days. This overlooks the fact that the contemporary meaning was Ratified by 3/4ths of the STATE legislators, and in accordance with THEIR understanding. I do not believe that statutory authority can override the meaning and intent of an Article of the Constitution.

3. Even if you accept this view, Your interpretation can be regarded as a conflict of Law. (Not at all uncommon.) Where one part of the law says one thing, and another part contradicts it or renders it moot. I have always believed in original intent as opposed to wringing new interpretations out of the text. The foundation document is a set of ideas and principles expressed in a crude form through writing. Words do not do these principles justice, but words are the only way the Founders had of conveying ideas into the future.

To put it simply, it is the IDEA which is important, not whether someone made a mistake in writing it down or used a poor choice of words. As an example, the 14th amendment is guilty of all sorts of mischief because it was so badly written. ( It was based on the Civil Rights act of 1866 which is far clearer in meaning and intent.) It has allowed Liberal Courts to reinterpret the laws to justify everything from Abortion on Demand to Anchor babies. It has caused most people to believe that if you are born anywhere on U.S. Territory you are automatically a U.S. Citizen, but of course place of birth has nothing to do with loyalty to a nation, and that is the Salient point of the "Natural Born Citizen" clause. Loyalty.

The founders did not believe that someone would be loyal to their country unless they were raised by a father that was loyal to their country. The way the Obama administration has turned out, the Founders would be smirking from 200 years ago.
Ok, I agree, they can disagree. That is the point of a Tri-partate system of checks/balance and turmoil, created on purpose.
However, in this case, it is a Consitutional Interpretation issue, which is the Purview of the Court. And, I also think that had the founders thought otherwise, the First Congress in its Second Session, would not have written this:

"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States. . . ."..."

And subsequently, the Court has never taken issue with it, In fact has cited on it more than once as clear intent of the Founders.
One would hope that the First Congress understood the Constitution many of them helped write.
I also agree that there was, and has been an intent that a Natural Born Citizen has an attachment to the United States. Thus the sticking to a parental residency requirement. And the Court recognizes this as well.
As far as I can tell, the real grow in this area since the original framing of the Constitution, and teh very early first legislations by Congress until to day, has been a logical growth to include Constitutional recognition/clarification of equal rights "for all", and thus recognition of the equality of a US mother to a US father in regards to the child's derived Citizenship.
I also think that the Founders intended for the Constitution to evolve, but really only when it truly needed to, and thus that they did not think that 220 years later we would be living under the same Constitutional rules. They included the power of Amendment on purpose, to provide the needed flexibility down the road.
I do not see where the Court was out of line, nor Congress in this particular lane. Congress did not change the meaning, they clarified it. The Court looked at it (more than once), and agreed that it was within the power of Congress to do so, and that what they did met Constitutional Intent.

If Congress were to make a Statute that was un-Constitutional, it is within the Power of the Court to undo it.

It is like Obama directing Justice not to pursue Gay Marraige cases. He can do that, but inevitably someone will take it to Court, and it will be addressed, as I was recently so told by a Senior US District Judge.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

ladajo wrote:
Ok, I agree, they can disagree. That is the point of a Tri-partate system of checks/balance and turmoil, created on purpose.
However, in this case, it is a Consitutional Interpretation issue, which is the Purview of the Court. And, I also think that had the founders thought otherwise, the First Congress in its Second Session, would not have written this:

"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States. . . ."..."

I have used this exact text to make this very same point in previous discussions on this issue. The Naturalization act of 1790 does indeed demonstrate the thinking of the era, and that is what I argued as well. I will point out that there are those who interpret the use of the plural "citizens" (in the "children of citizens" part) as meaning the parents (plural) of a child. (two citizens) I'm not sure if this is correct, because in those days they really didn't care what nationality the mother was, because the Citizenship of the couple was automatically the same as the man's.

I have also discovered that there are those that argue the place of birth is not that important, and from my reading i'm inclined to believe that the place of birth is really not that important to loyalty. What IS important to loyalty is that you have parents who are loyal to their country, and not where a child is born. But there are those that argue that a child MUST be born on American soil. (Again, I think this is the influence of that pernicious 14th amendment.)


ladajo wrote: And subsequently, the Court has never taken issue with it, In fact has cited on it more than once as clear intent of the Founders.
One would hope that the First Congress understood the Constitution many of them helped write.

On that score I can provide some pieces of information. The Congress and the Delegates were heavily influenced by Vatell's book. They basically used it as a blueprint for writing our Constitution.

Here is an excerpt from a Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Charles Dumas who had sent copies of the "Law of Nations" to Franklin.
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. -Benjamin Franklin.
Also Franklin Used Law of Nations as a code book for secret communication with Dumas in Europe.

(and another link if you are interested in Franklin the Spymaster)

Thomas Jefferson Used the book to write the Declaration of Independence.

The book was Cited DURING the constitutional Convention.

George Washington didn't return his copy to the New York Library.

ladajo wrote: I also agree that there was, and has been an intent that a Natural Born Citizen has an attachment to the United States. Thus the sticking to a parental residency requirement. And the Court recognizes this as well.
As far as I can tell, the real grow in this area since the original framing of the Constitution, and teh very early first legislations by Congress until to day, has been a logical growth to include Constitutional recognition/clarification of equal rights "for all", and thus recognition of the equality of a US mother to a US father in regards to the child's derived Citizenship.
I also think that the Founders intended for the Constitution to evolve, but really only when it truly needed to, and thus that they did not think that 220 years later we would be living under the same Constitutional rules. They included the power of Amendment on purpose, to provide the needed flexibility down the road.
I do not see where the Court was out of line, nor Congress in this particular lane. Congress did not change the meaning, they clarified it. The Court looked at it (more than once), and agreed that it was within the power of Congress to do so, and that what they did met Constitutional Intent.

If Congress were to make a Statute that was un-Constitutional, it is within the Power of the Court to undo it.

It is like Obama directing Justice not to pursue Gay Marraige cases. He can do that, but inevitably someone will take it to Court, and it will be addressed, as I was recently so told by a Senior US District Judge.

You are pointing out that incrementalism has allowed people to interpret something that meant one thing, into something that meant another thing. The relaxing of a requirement that Citizenship could only be transferred by an American father to Citizenship can also be transferred by an American mother is a non-conserving methodology. In practice it makes no difference whatsoever EXCEPT when it comes to the Presidency. In this regard it has the effect of completely destroying the original intent and purpose of the Article. A conservation of principle would require that you make the requirements at least as stringent as they were originally, and indeed as they were written in the book from which the founders got the term "Natural born citizen." (both parents.)

What we have here is an oddity of American law that allowed Citizenship to pass from father to children because the mothers were automatically acquired the Father's nationality. (and thereby the requirement of two citizen parents was satisfied.) You can only argue that the new methodology is equivalent if a foreign Husband automatically gains the Citizenship of the wife, and thereby also satisfies the requirements of two citizen parents.

Prior to 1920, if a Woman (of any nationality) married an American Husband, she automatically became an American citizen. Any Children produced were automatically qualified as "Natural Born Citizens." After 1920, Wives and Husbands could be married to persons of different nationalities, and so a heretofore never before experienced uncertainty was introduced into the system.Since changes in the 1920s allowed Citizenship to be separated by Marriage, the offspring's citizenship became separated as well into that of dual citizenship and divided loyalties, the very thing the Founders sought to prevent.

The only way to be consistent with previous law AND original intent would be to require both parents to be American citizens before the child is born, (as was always the case prior to 1920) OR allow the Wife to automatically transfer her citizenship to a foreign born husband. (Not going to happen.)



I offer my above interpretation as a more valid application of the law and principles involved without the detriment of degrading original intent.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

JLawson
Posts: 424
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by JLawson »

Diogenes wrote:While I'm at it, i'll point out that Obama isn't even on the "Hawaiian Birth Index" for 1961. (That's the list of Children born in Hawaii during that year.)


He's not listed Under "Obama", or "Dunham" (his mother's maiden name) or "Payne". (his Grandmother's maiden name.)


Funny that the vital records of Hawaii would show no one with his name born that year.

Link to article.

Now how do you suppose he got left off the list of people born that year? Inquiring minds want to know!
Okay, haven't been much of a Birther - but due to my folks passing away and having to come up with info on surviving (or not) relations for insurance purposes - I've been doing digging into various databases and have been able to find birth records pretty consistently for relatives since the turn of last century. If you know approximately where and when they were born, you can do some digging and find the name you're looking for.

It's decidedly odd that there's no indication of his name in the birth records. There's a lot of personal, scanned in info in Ancestry.Com - but a search for "Obama", birth year 1961, +-5 years... produces nothing out of any official databases. The name Dunham seems a bit more common - but looking for that date (or close to it) doesn't come up with anything in Hawaii. There IS a 'Dunham' born in California (no first name given, mother's maiden is Dunham, no first name given...) on 16 Sep 1961 - but nothing else that's even close.

And as far as Payne goes - there was a James D. Payne born on 4 Aug '61 - but that was in Orange County, CA to Whitfiel...

Certainly not conclusive, but darned peculiar. And for what it's worth, a search on George W. Bush, 6 July 1946, New Haven, Connecticut isn't showing anything either. Plenty of scanned in stuff, but no database entries.
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

I agree with the intent to grant citizenship with an attaachment to the counrty. And the Supreme Court did as well, which is why they ruled against Bellei. He failed to demonstrate via either his parentage or self an attachment to the US.

I am OK that the the idea has morphed to one parent, with a deomnstrated attachment (ie lived in the US), and I think the concept of full equality means it matters not, father or mother.
However, I also think there should be a requirement for the Child to some time in residence as well. But, that is not what the Constitution, Supreme Court and Congress think. They all think it is right of blood, as long as the blood demonstrates connection to the land by having residence.

So it is interesting. I had always thought that being foreign born, in a foreign hospital, to a foreign mother, with a US father made me a US citizen, but not a Natural Born Citizen. Apparently I have been wrong.
You are pointing out that incrementalism has allowed people to interpret something that meant one thing, into something that meant another thing. The relaxing of a requirement that Citizenship could only be transferred by an American father to Citizenship can also be transferred by an American mother is a non-conserving methodology. In practice it makes no difference whatsoever EXCEPT when it comes to the Presidency. In this regard it has the effect of completely destroying the original intent and purpose of the Article. A conservation of principle would require that you make the requirements at least as stringent as they were originally, and indeed as they were written in the book from which the founders got the term "Natural born citizen." (both parents.)
I am Ok with it being either parent. But I do think the child must demonstrate a connection as well. Or else give up "Natural Born Status", and revert to Citizen. A child can default as Natural Born, but if the child does not execute "X" years prior to age of majority living in the US or Influence (say as military family abroad, or government empoyee assigned abroad, as current law recognizes), it is neccessary to lose the Natural Born status.

But in this, I also think that it is important that the system has adapted to change in the world and the US. And I do think that the founders intent was to allow to Constitution to adjust to changing reality over time, because that which might adapt would not violate its core principles of Universal Human Rights.

So far, I think it is holding up ok. The drama is in our own conflicts of self interest.

TimTruett
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 6:26 pm
Location: Washington DC metro area

Post by TimTruett »

Let's not forget what is really going on here.

The Birthers' chatter, and the other attacks on Barack Obama, are not some sort of active discussion among concerned citizens.

Instead, it is all part of a Republican dis-information campaign.

JLawson
Posts: 424
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by JLawson »

TimTruett wrote:Let's not forget what is really going on here.

The Birthers' chatter, and the other attacks on Barack Obama, are not some sort of active discussion among concerned citizens.

Instead, it is all part of a Republican dis-information campaign.
Yeah, and I'm getting paid so WELL for it too... NOT! LOL.

Good flippin' lord, Truett - you've never had a minor question that bugged you until you tried to find an answer for it? And then when trying to find that answer found odd obstacles in your way?

Suppose you were trying to find, oh, what temperature liquid hydrogen vaporizes at. And all you had was a chemistry textbook, where reference is made to liquid hydrogen (thus it exists) but all citations as to the temperature have been carefully removed. Helium you can find - hydrogen? Not there.

Do you stop to ask yourself just WHY someone seems to have it in for hydrogen? Likely not - until you find another book with the same info missing.

Hey, it's a physical constant - Hydrogen's a gas, and can be liquified - so why hide the info? What's the point? It won't change reality.

Obama was born. That's obvious. He exists, therefore in some government database we should be able to find his birth record. There's apparently no record in Hawaii's database of his being born on the date specified.

Was he born under a different name? Maybe in a different state? Maybe on a different date? Once the first fact - that he WAS born in Hawaii on the 4th of August, 1961 - comes into question, things get complicated. I really prefer things to be simple.

And to simplify it - we need the information that's currently being hidden... for whatever reason.

(And I'm still curious about his college transcripts. What's the point in hiding those, unless the information contained contradicts the media's careful characterization of his intelligence?)
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

TimTruett wrote:Let's not forget what is really going on here.

The Birthers' chatter, and the other attacks on Barack Obama, are not some sort of active discussion among concerned citizens.

Instead, it is all part of a Republican dis-information campaign.

The dis-information campaign is what got him elected. What I and others are doing is putting out the CORRECT information.


While we're on the subject, More information has come out that demonstrates Obama isn't even an American Citizen. Jack Cashill recently wrote an article regarding Obama's Connecticut social security number. Turn out that it's real. Obama DOES have a social security number from Connecticut. The question is WHY?

The answer is that his credentials are SO bad, that he couldn't even get a REAL social security number, and relied on his friend Bill Ayers (Who forged countless identity documents during his Weather Underground terrorism days.) to cobble him together American identification.

Here's the article in case anyone wants to read it.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

That is an interesting point.
I have a New Hampshire Social Security Number. And it is based purely on that fact that that is where we moved to from New Zealand, and thus where my parents registered us kids for socials (at age 12 in my case).

Why would Obama have a CT social if he was born, and later raised in HI? I know now that you get a social when born, no choice. But I do not know what the deal was then for him.

JLawson
Posts: 424
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by JLawson »

ladajo wrote:That is an interesting point.
I have a New Hampshire Social Security Number. And it is based purely on that fact that that is where we moved to from New Zealand, and thus where my parents registered us kids for socials (at age 12 in my case).

Why would Obama have a CT social if he was born, and later raised in HI? I know now that you get a social when born, no choice. But I do not know what the deal was then for him.
Good question. From what I've found 042's a Connecticut number all right.

http://socialsecuritynumerology.com/prefixes.php

And his Social's not turning up anything here...

http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi

But there's quite a discussion here, though a bit dated...

http://www.crazyontap.com/topic.php?TopicId=57303

Just another interesting question. Don't know about you folks, but there comes a point where the unanswered questions can't be dismissed through frantic handwaving and misdirection.

Sooner or later, the info will come out - and so will the reasons behind hiding it.

Lord, I'm starting to sound like I need some tinfoil...
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

ladajo wrote:That is an interesting point.
I have a New Hampshire Social Security Number. And it is based purely on that fact that that is where we moved to from New Zealand, and thus where my parents registered us kids for socials (at age 12 in my case).

Why would Obama have a CT social if he was born, and later raised in HI? I know now that you get a social when born, no choice. But I do not know what the deal was then for him.
According to the Article, the Social Security number was issued in Connecticut when Obama was 16 years old.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

JLawson wrote:
ladajo wrote:That is an interesting point.
I have a New Hampshire Social Security Number. And it is based purely on that fact that that is where we moved to from New Zealand, and thus where my parents registered us kids for socials (at age 12 in my case).

Why would Obama have a CT social if he was born, and later raised in HI? I know now that you get a social when born, no choice. But I do not know what the deal was then for him.
Good question. From what I've found 042's a Connecticut number all right.

http://socialsecuritynumerology.com/prefixes.php

And his Social's not turning up anything here...

http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi

But there's quite a discussion here, though a bit dated...

http://www.crazyontap.com/topic.php?TopicId=57303

Just another interesting question. Don't know about you folks, but there comes a point where the unanswered questions can't be dismissed through frantic handwaving and misdirection.

Sooner or later, the info will come out - and so will the reasons behind hiding it.

Lord, I'm starting to sound like I need some tinfoil...


I have a working theory about what's going on. (I'd like to take credit for thinking of it first, but I ran across it perusing "Lame Cherry's" blog.)

Obama was born in Vancouver. It fits the known evidence. The reason he had to get a fake Social Security number is because he couldn't produce an acceptable American birth certificate. The Hawaiian "CertificaTION" probably shows an "at home" birth, and didn't meet the standards required for proof of American Citizenship.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Post Reply